Will preface by saying what an advocate with 20+ years of experience told me: "even 8 years is considered a short time in hardcore litigation."
1. Rule no. 1 - It may or may not get better. Sub-rule 1, don't compare transactional (specifically law firms) with litigation. Different rules of the game. For law firms, it's the toxic culture and overworking that leads to early burnouts - the work itself is repetitive and not as intellectually stimulating (at least at the initial levels since you would hardly ever get the complete picture unless you have a solid commercial sense). With litigation, you'd be up at night thinking about your clients' interests and ethical dilemmas; not to forget the constant running and high pressure environments (high pressure in a different sense compared to former). But the important thing is, stress can be managed in both situations, especially if toxicity is not the deciding factor. You are in your early years, so you practically have a lot to learn, the ABCs of practice. It is overwhelming at first but imo, you do get used to it. I would say talk to seniors first (someone with at least 15+ years of practice) - everyone at some stage has faced what you are facing.. If anxiety is something you struggle with generally, then seek some therapy because that will follow you no matter where you go, be it corp. or in-house. Sub-rule 2: Understand that in litigation, you WILL make mistakes... because every one makes them and you are no exception to it.
2. Rule no. 2 - nepotism is the name of the game. Understand that, appreciate that, and accept it with open arms. Doesn't mean you cannot succeed and make a killer living in the long term; just slightly harder to reach there. If you can solidify you courtroom skills, that bridge will certainly keep becoming smaller and smaller. What most people often forget is that litigation or even corporate law is about having a practice i.e. the ability to develop and maintain a clientele. Ofc your skills and pre-existing connections will play a huge role in that but the ability to get clients will decide your pay check, not necessarily the family connections you have (ofc there is an interdependence in the short term, but that weakens with the efflux of time). If you and your buddies work 4-5 years to specialise in a certain field (although as an AoR you'd need to be a generalist too), combining your skills and opening up a firm would be a great way to go ahead). Realistic possibility of success depends on your skills; I'm sorry but that is the answer (also see below) - if you have decent drafting and language skills, you already have an edge over most District court lawyers; as you move up the chain, lawyers become more polished.
3. Rule no. 3 - higher the risk, higher the reward. Theoretically speaking, from $$ pov, there are no ceilings in litigation - you have the ability to out-earn some of MPs of Corp firms (some of them get their major chunk from non-firm sources). But since your concern is stress, yes, in-house would be more suited even though from $$ pov, it would rank at the bottom. Your worry about lack of growth is also not misplaced. But you would learn commercial sense and business decision making as well. You can ofc make it work in long run but you know, this is a hard one to answer without knowing what your aspirations are. If you dream of rolling in money, I'm sorry, this would not be the best path since your PQE would hardly fetch you anything (although more than what you may be drawing in litigation at this time); (also tax implications would worse); the way forward would be to keep strategically switching companies to get a hike but the progression/ceiling would be slower/lower compared to the other two. If money is not your prime motivator, then ofc you can make it work - you could have a shot at healthy work-life balance (again not a guarantee). Also w/o knowing you exact aspirations, this can only be answered in abstract. Might get downvoted for saying this but whether at a law firm or in litigation, it is that work-load, stress, and constant fear/anxiety of screwing up things that made the top-earners who they are. No one became great at what they do by putting in normal stress-free 8hr work days with a healthy work-life balance. Putting up with toxicity may not be a requisite (although common) but labouring is a requirement to succeed in this profession. Even though I say that corporate work may be less stimulating, but the partners who are at the top know their shit and have survived that vicious period. Also, there may be other career prospects but I'm going to limit myself to only these three.
4. Rule No. 4 - there are no rules to life; only to the games contained therein. You can switch professions at any time. It's fine to change your mind about what you want to do. Remember, it's your life; if something takes a toll on your mental health and you have exhausted ways to deal with it, it's an indication that you ought to do something else. You are entitled to do what makes you happy. Ofc, there are obligations in everyone's lives that determines the actual choices they make, but I hope you get the drift. To answer you pointed questions: yes MBA would be better if you plan to move abroad (although I do know a handful lawyers who did LLM abroad and got started in corporate abroad but it's way harder - this may merit another post and corporate lawyers may be better placed to answer the specifics). But I'd advise you to not see MBA as a backup or draw a positive correlation: if you don't like law, got for MBA but go hard at it; the law journey should end here although you may benefit from the knowledge, which you have gained so far, in some indirect way. Don't try to build up to MBA using law as a foundation - don't think MBA will help you as a lawyer to get into management etc; it will help anyone to transition to business side of things because that is what that professional degree is! It's a different professional course with a different career trajectory. In so far as lateral career move in sales/marketing is concerned, well it's pretty abstract the way you frame it- people make a living doing that, correct? Feasibility would depend on YOUR aspirations and personality. I know a few people who work in brand management and it gets stressful at times; but they are not dealing with lives so it's a different kind of stress. There are different rules to that game and you should talk to someone owning that game to learn whether you'd be a good fit for it.
Rule no. 5. - You have to love the law at some level to be in this profession in the long term. The ones who make it to partner in corp. firms are able to find some value in the drudgery of the initial years and hence are willing to put up even with abuse (do not encourage or discourage; that's their prerogative). Those who make it as successful litigators have to love the law and welcome the stress/anxiety that court practice brings in.
I've read your reply multiple times over the past few days. Out of all the advice I've received over this situation, yours has been the most helpful, reliable and practical. I've realized that I've been pretty immature in terms of dealing with the job, and at the same time taking myself too seriously. The way you've explained each of the situations I'm facing and answered all my questions has given me a lot of clarity with how I'm handling this and how I should proceed. Mr. Kacha Baniyan Gang, thank you for taking the time to explain all of this to me. I'll take this advice to heart and I genuinely appreciate what you've said. I've decided to continue litigation and hope to deal with my anxiety in the process. Thank you for all the help you've given me
1. Rule no. 1 - It may or may not get better. Sub-rule 1, don't compare transactional (specifically law firms) with litigation. Different rules of the game. For law firms, it's the toxic culture and overworking that leads to early burnouts - the work itself is repetitive and not as intellectually stimulating (at least at the initial levels since you would hardly ever get the complete picture unless you have a solid commercial sense). With litigation, you'd be up at night thinking about your clients' interests and ethical dilemmas; not to forget the constant running and high pressure environments (high pressure in a different sense compared to former). But the important thing is, stress can be managed in both situations, especially if toxicity is not the deciding factor. You are in your early years, so you practically have a lot to learn, the ABCs of practice. It is overwhelming at first but imo, you do get used to it. I would say talk to seniors first (someone with at least 15+ years of practice) - everyone at some stage has faced what you are facing.. If anxiety is something you struggle with generally, then seek some therapy because that will follow you no matter where you go, be it corp. or in-house. Sub-rule 2: Understand that in litigation, you WILL make mistakes... because every one makes them and you are no exception to it.
2. Rule no. 2 - nepotism is the name of the game. Understand that, appreciate that, and accept it with open arms. Doesn't mean you cannot succeed and make a killer living in the long term; just slightly harder to reach there. If you can solidify you courtroom skills, that bridge will certainly keep becoming smaller and smaller. What most people often forget is that litigation or even corporate law is about having a practice i.e. the ability to develop and maintain a clientele. Ofc your skills and pre-existing connections will play a huge role in that but the ability to get clients will decide your pay check, not necessarily the family connections you have (ofc there is an interdependence in the short term, but that weakens with the efflux of time). If you and your buddies work 4-5 years to specialise in a certain field (although as an AoR you'd need to be a generalist too), combining your skills and opening up a firm would be a great way to go ahead). Realistic possibility of success depends on your skills; I'm sorry but that is the answer (also see below) - if you have decent drafting and language skills, you already have an edge over most District court lawyers; as you move up the chain, lawyers become more polished.
3. Rule no. 3 - higher the risk, higher the reward. Theoretically speaking, from $$ pov, there are no ceilings in litigation - you have the ability to out-earn some of MPs of Corp firms (some of them get their major chunk from non-firm sources). But since your concern is stress, yes, in-house would be more suited even though from $$ pov, it would rank at the bottom. Your worry about lack of growth is also not misplaced. But you would learn commercial sense and business decision making as well. You can ofc make it work in long run but you know, this is a hard one to answer without knowing what your aspirations are. If you dream of rolling in money, I'm sorry, this would not be the best path since your PQE would hardly fetch you anything (although more than what you may be drawing in litigation at this time); (also tax implications would worse); the way forward would be to keep strategically switching companies to get a hike but the progression/ceiling would be slower/lower compared to the other two. If money is not your prime motivator, then ofc you can make it work - you could have a shot at healthy work-life balance (again not a guarantee). Also w/o knowing you exact aspirations, this can only be answered in abstract.
Might get downvoted for saying this but whether at a law firm or in litigation, it is that work-load, stress, and constant fear/anxiety of screwing up things that made the top-earners who they are. No one became great at what they do by putting in normal stress-free 8hr work days with a healthy work-life balance. Putting up with toxicity may not be a requisite (although common) but labouring is a requirement to succeed in this profession. Even though I say that corporate work may be less stimulating, but the partners who are at the top know their shit and have survived that vicious period.
Also, there may be other career prospects but I'm going to limit myself to only these three.
4. Rule No. 4 - there are no rules to life; only to the games contained therein. You can switch professions at any time. It's fine to change your mind about what you want to do. Remember, it's your life; if something takes a toll on your mental health and you have exhausted ways to deal with it, it's an indication that you ought to do something else. You are entitled to do what makes you happy. Ofc, there are obligations in everyone's lives that determines the actual choices they make, but I hope you get the drift.
To answer you pointed questions: yes MBA would be better if you plan to move abroad (although I do know a handful lawyers who did LLM abroad and got started in corporate abroad but it's way harder - this may merit another post and corporate lawyers may be better placed to answer the specifics). But I'd advise you to not see MBA as a backup or draw a positive correlation: if you don't like law, got for MBA but go hard at it; the law journey should end here although you may benefit from the knowledge, which you have gained so far, in some indirect way. Don't try to build up to MBA using law as a foundation - don't think MBA will help you as a lawyer to get into management etc; it will help anyone to transition to business side of things because that is what that professional degree is! It's a different professional course with a different career trajectory.
In so far as lateral career move in sales/marketing is concerned, well it's pretty abstract the way you frame it- people make a living doing that, correct? Feasibility would depend on YOUR aspirations and personality. I know a few people who work in brand management and it gets stressful at times; but they are not dealing with lives so it's a different kind of stress. There are different rules to that game and you should talk to someone owning that game to learn whether you'd be a good fit for it.
Rule no. 5. - You have to love the law at some level to be in this profession in the long term. The ones who make it to partner in corp. firms are able to find some value in the drudgery of the initial years and hence are willing to put up even with abuse (do not encourage or discourage; that's their prerogative). Those who make it as successful litigators have to love the law and welcome the stress/anxiety that court practice brings in.
Best of luck. Hope that is somewhat helpful.